StealthyBlagga

I've raised two boys to shoot. I started both of them out with .22 pistols around the age of 7 (we have a .22 steel match monthly here that is great for new shooters), then they graduated to centerfire action shooting competitions - one shot outlaw multigun, one shot USPSA pistol. . They enjoyed it until they got to college and found other pursuits. I am comforted knowing they can handle firearms competently, and expect they will come back to it when they are ready. You don't say how old your son is, nor whether he has any shooting experience. Is his interest driven only by watching YouTube videos? Video games? Other? Does he tend to stick with things or is he prone to changing his mind on hobbies? My advice would be to start him out with one-gun instead of three. Action handgun matches (under USPSA or IDPA rules) are far more prolific than 3-gun, and shooting a handgun requires more discipline and care than the long guns... in my experience, it is easy to teach a competent handgunner to be competent with long guns, much less so to go the other way. Getting into handgun first will also let him get used to shooting competition (rules, safety protocols, how to shoot a stage etc.), will present more opportunities to shoot, and will be MUCH easier on your pocketbook. A quality service-size 9mm handgun (Glock 17, M&P9 etc.), a couple of spare magazines, a decent Kydex holster and mag pouches, and a sturdy belt are all he will need to get started, and will work just fine as he transitions into 3-gun. If he decides to quit, all of that gear can be repurposed for personal protection. Starting out right now is particularly challenging because of the current supply crunch on guns and ammo. If you already have guns and ammo, or have a friend you can borrow gear from for the first match, that would be smart. Worst case, post your location here and see if someone local is willing to walk him through his first match. Good luck.

For action shooting, bore cleanliness is grossly overrated. Ain't nobody got time fo' that. I clean my match handguns only a couple of times a year, and even then I only use a BoreSnake. I rarely bother with a rod for match handguns anymore. I am a bit more meticulous with safe queens and carry guns, which still get the rod. The same goes for my match rifles (AR15s) except that I run a short rod with chamber brush into the chamber before pulling the BoreSnake through. I only do a more thorough decoppering clean when I see the accuracy fall off. I have a BoreSnake for my 12ga shotgun too, but I don't really like it - the built up crud really does need a lot of scrubbing with a brush on a rod.

I am sure that will be true for some, but I'm equally sure that others will already be compliant, or able to become compliant with little/no investment in new gear. The purpose of the Rosetta Stone is to make this as painless and accessible as possible.

Indeed - several of us agreed that the ammo drought makes this a good time to try this initiative. Quality>Quantity.

Thanks for that... you brightened my day immeasurably

Mike: Thanks - I already have your excellent Front Sight articles from November 2012 and January 2013. If you have something more to share, I'd love to see it.

This will be an experiment for sure, and the market will tell us if it proves popular. Fortunately, we run matches both days of every weekend in the month, plus evenings during the week, so the USPSA diehards will still have ample opportunity to stay in their comfort zone.

I don't disagree that the IPSC shooting challenge could be recreated within USPSA rules (e.g. use IPSC targets exclusively, follow 3-2-1 stage design etc.), but I think the goal is to create a match with a more distinctive flavor. As mentioned, the "do/don't do" decision is above my pay grade... I have just been asked to source a Rosetta Stone document.

I'm not driving the change - as a former IPSC competitor and an IROA RO, I've just been asked to help and offer advice. I think the goal is to create a different flavor of match - more technical, lower round counts etc. - and potentially look toward hosting international matches at some point in the future. Having had considerable experience with both formats, I must say that I think the change would do us good. Yup, we have a pretty good grasp of the various conduct, stage design etc. differences. What I am hoping for is an easy guide to what needs to change for USPSA gear to be IPSC-legal. If such a document is not readily available, I will have to put one together. I'm just trying to avoid reinventing the wheel. I don't know about the activity fee question - I'd assume not as USPSA is IPSC's US affiliate, but that is above my pay grade. In any case, I doubt this would be a factor in the decision.

My USPSA club wants to start running regular IPSC matches. Of course, most of our regulars only have USPSA gear so we need an easy way to educate them on what needs to be changed on their guns and gear to comply. I am familiar with the differences myself, but am hoping a "Rosetta Stone" document already exists so I don't have to create one myself. If anyone has one they can share (or a suggestion of where to look on the internet), it would save me a lot of work. Thanks in advance.

All excellent suggestions, thanks. I will give them a try.

I like to keep bottles of oil in my range bags. Unfortunately, pretty much every bottle I have tried eventually ooozes some oil out and it makes a mess. I've tried double-bagging the bottles in poly ziploc bags to no avail. Does anyone have a good solution?

Registration for SMM3G 2021 is officially OPEN. As in recent years, there will be a 1-week registration window after which match slots will be awarded by random draw using the PractiScore lottery system. For details of the match, and to register, visit the SMM3G match page on PractiScore.

Superstition Mountain Mystery 3-Gun (SMM3G) March 17-21, 2021. Registration opens mid-October (dates to be posted here).

Indeed, bimetal ammo has a mild steel jacket that will attract a magnet, but you can use it under this match's unique rules. Just please do not bring ammo with a penetrator core.

I've used Arredondo, TTI and TF. All worked 100%. Whichever you choose, do NOT add anything to the bottom of the extension (e.g. grip tape) without checking it in the official gauge... I've see a lot of mags fail the gauge for this reason. At the very least, only bring your shortest magazine to the chrono

Here you go

Sure - viewed from the side?

I have been running Glock magazines in my 9mm PCCs since the creation of USPSA PCC division, initially with a Quarter Circle 10 blowback gun and most recently with a pair of CMMG Radial Delayed Blowback frankenguns. I've had great luck with factory Glock 33-round mags in all of these guns, but noted a tendency for the front of the magazine to deform after a period of time: My assumption is that this deformation is caused by the cartridge nose impacting the front of the magazine tube as it feeds into the chamber. The deformation occurs in the steel magazine liner and is easy enough to bend back into shape, but over time the liner starts to weaken in this area. Eventually, the bend returns after firing as little as one magazine load and is so bad the magazine is difficult to remove. I tried addressing the issue by changing ammo (bullet profile and COAL) but to no avail. In the end, I decided to find a permanent fix by modifying the gun. Here is what I did: 1) Using a scribe, I marked the boundary of the upper receiver: 2) I found the center of the area between the scribed line and the inside-front of the magwell, marked it with a center punch and then drilled a 5/32" hole about 0.45" deep: 3) Lastly, I cut a 5/32" roll pin to a length that would create ~0.23" of protrusion, then drove it into the hole: The photos below show how this modification works to provide support to the front face of the magazine tube, thus preventing the problematic deformation: At least in my RDB system, the pin does not interfere with the movement of the bolt assembly, nor does it interfere with ammo feeding. Since making this modification, I have seen no further magazine deformation, functioning has been 100%, and magazines continue to drop free under gravity when the release is depressed. I am optimistic that this modification will resolve the issues on my PCCs, and I wanted to share the information in case anyone else is struggling with the same issue. If you have any questions, post them here.

Understood. This is one of those unusual situations that the rules don't really anticipate. An experienced RO will use it as a teachable moment - the poor guy was probably wondering why he was not getting any hits past 10 yards.

Please re-read my statement above - I never said a grease ring is required. I said "the presence of a crown, grease ring or similar evidence of an actual intact bullet is required by 9.5.5 to negate the PRESUMPTION that the hole was caused by a non-scoring impact (examples given)". I think this is a reasonable interpretation of 9.5.5. Your statement above that (and I quote) "Rule 9.5.5 deals with debris and splatter, not with scoring of deflected bullets" is factually incorrect... rather, 9.5.5 deals with RICOCHETS and splatter (read the rule). I think if you asked the average shooter whether the word "ricochet" refers to a bullet or a piece of other debris, they would say it refers to a bullet. A bullet may ricochet and become so deformed that, when it travels on to hit a target, it no longer leaves a crown-like arc that can be scored. Because such a hit is indistinguishable from that of a rock, piece of wood or other secondary missile, rule 9.5.5 instructs us to presume it to be a non-scoring impact. While the shooter may feel that they deserve the hit, 9.5.5 says no.

I agree that the RO should routinely be checking to see if the bullet passed full-diameter through anything deemed inpenetrable (target, hard cover), whether or not the hole in the target looks unusual (though the appearance may be a cue to pay extra attention). However, I do not agree with the assertion that we should otherwise automatically or by default assume any hole in the target was caused by the bullet (which I think is what you are saying). Instead, regardless of what we think might have happened, if the hole is larger-than-caliber then rule 9.5.5 should come into play - that's its whole raison d'être. My answer was a response to the specific (and may I say, slightly reductio ad absurdum) example of the hole made by bullets disintigrating out of the barrel. I referenced those rules because they seemed most appropriate for consideration, but of course they would not apply in all cases. The ammunition may or may not be unsafe, depending on the magnitude of the problem and what type of firearm is in use. As for the multiple projectile rule, you did see the LOL emoticon, right? I don't believe I am being irrationally defensive. I think I have explained my position clearly, with reference to specific rules and definitions. That some here may not agree with the way I would handle the call does not make me wrong. If you disagree, please reference the RULE that contradicts my assertions. I agree. In the case referenced by the OP - a near-perfect hole without grease ring - the lack of a grease ring does not, of itself, negate the hit. However, in the specific case of a larger-than-caliber hole that I was responding to, the presence of a crown, grease ring or similar evidence of an actual intact bullet is required by 9.5.5 to negate the PRESUMPTION that the hole was caused by a non-scoring impact (examples given). As a general comment, I tend to spend less and less time in this rules forum because the discussions often become defensive and personal. This is regrettable. If folks disagree with a position taken by someone, please explain with reference to a plain English reading of the rules as written (in the current rule book or in an official published ruling)... "we've always done it this way" or "some RMI said X" does not count.

One can always speculate about way-out-in-left-field situations, but the RO should not ignore the rules as written to accommodate them. I would resolve your scenario by invoking one or both of the following rules: 5.5.5 Any ammunition deemed unsafe by a Range Officer must be immediately withdrawn from the match. 5.5.6 Ammunition must not discharge more than one bullet or other scoring projectile from a single round.

Great for snakes - not much else.

I hear you, but I have two concerns: 1) Knowing with certainty that a larger-than-caliber hole was caused by a relatively intact bullet, which presumably we can all agree should score, as opposed to a spray of fragments or a secondary missile (like a piece of wood), which presumably we can all agree should not count. 2) Being able to accurately score a larger-than-caliber hole that spans a scoring line. The "crown/grease ring" test is an objective way for the RO to resolve both questions, and has served me well over the years. If folks want to advocate for a different standard, it is beholden on them to explain how their approach addresses the two concerns above with reasonable certainty.